Case Against Renewable Energy

[SomeRandom]

The whole deal about fossil fuels was a load of crap. Human beings have been burning wood for about 4000 years (at least) with no ill effects. The burning of fossil fuels was slightly less clean, and coal in particular can in fact pollute the air. In fact, the London "fog" nearly choked people at one point. But except in areas with millions of people packed densely (Mexico City, NYC, Chicago), most people in small towns aren't even capable of making the air substantially unclean, but they are made to pay carbon taxes. All of these places, btw, are telling us how we are polluting so much. Giant hypocrites, more like.

And another thing! CO2 is a natural gas exhaled by humans and animals, and can be purified by plants. If machines are releasing this, they are doing pretty well. It's only when CO (carbon monoxide) is exhausted that the pollution needs to be managed.

Wind energy, doesn't just kill a few birds. MILLIONS.
https://abcbirds.org/article/wind-power-could-kill-millions-of-birds-per-year-by-2030/
And here's the issue with solar power. The panels are made of graphene, something that is not only incredibly sharp, but also incredibly toxic. It breaks into shards that can find their way into to the water systems, killing fish. Along with other things.
Toxic Chemicals in Solar Panels

As far as I know, tidal energy is fairly safe, so is geothermal. They pull energy from sources, but don't really drain energy. But this gets swept under the rug for more "popular" energy sources.

Well then we should find other better ways. I fail to see why there has to be a dichotomy of just fossil fuels or green energy.

 

[We Never Know]

Well then we should find other better ways. I fail to see why there has to be a dichotomy of just fossil fuels or green energy.

What alternatives would work for commercial jets?
There are an average of 100,000 flights per day world wide. The Aviation Safety Network estimated there were nearly 37 million flights in 2017.
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel(about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Well then we should find other better ways. I fail to see why there has to be a dichotomy of just fossil fuels or green energy.

What I want is green energy that actually is green. This happens when we leave the self-righteous types that pat themselves on the back behind, and look into using time-tested renewable energy using safe methods.

Windmills were a way of harnessing wind. Fine. But then people made them bigger and lighter to turn turbines faster, and suddenly we have big bird blenders.

I'm convinced solar power could work. But we need to take a model from Egyptian culture and make these things out of big sturdy materials which can last, and are as safe as natural limestone.

The problem with most of our current tech is we are so into looking snazzy and futuristic that we forget that cultures before us used wood and stone and basic metals.

As to the problem of jet planes, it sounds like they already use fuel at an unsustainable level. Nuclear energy can give enough, but radiation. And it could blow up. Ideally, the idea behind any energy source is safety and recyclability. That is, if you're using nuclear power, you would necessarily have to reduce fallout to 0%, and you'd have to do something kinda like fission-fusion perpetual energy. Sorta, it's constantly reusing a single uranium ore. But this is also true of solar energy. If it depletes the sun, you've done it wrong.

The best approach would be using wind vents to suck in massive amounts of air to turn turbines, then blowing out air from the exhaust. You'd need a sort of screen to keep from sucking in birds though.

 

[SomeRandom]

What alternatives would work for commercial jets?
There are an average of 100,000 flights per day world wide. The Aviation Safety Network estimated there were nearly 37 million flights in 2017.
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel(about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).

Which is why I specified it shouldn’t be an either or scenario. Perhaps we wil one day fine a renewable resource to allow massive jets to fly “green.”
I do not discount the possibility. Alas this is a tad out of my education zone, if you get me.

 

[SomeRandom]

What I want is green energy that actually is green. This happens when we leave the self-righteous types that pat themselves on the back behind, and look into using time-tested renewable energy using safe methods.

Windmills were a way of harnessing wind. Fine. But then people made them bigger and lighter to turn turbines faster, and suddenly we have big bird blenders.

I'm convinced solar power could work. But we need to take a model from Egyptian culture and make these things out of big sturdy materials which can last, and are as safe as natural limestone.

The problem with most of our current tech is we are so into looking snazzy and futuristic that we forget that cultures before us used wood and stone and basic metals.

As to the problem of jet planes, it sounds like they already use fuel at an unsustainable level. Nuclear energy can give enough, but radiation. And it could blow up. Ideally, the idea behind any energy source is safety and recyclability. That is, if you're using nuclear power, you would necessarily have to reduce fallout to 0%, and you'd have to do something kinda like fission-fusion perpetual energy. Sorta, it's constantly reusing a single uranium ore. But this is also true of solar energy. If it depletes the sun, you've done it wrong.

The best approach would be using wind vents to suck in massive amounts of air to turn turbines, then blowing out air from the exhaust. You'd need a sort of screen to keep from sucking in birds though.

Fair enough.

 

[exchemist]

Be my guest. However, you MIGHT try to actually read what I am writing and not what you assume I am writing. Since one poster has already outright admitted, when she said that she didn't read my post because one of the paragraphs was 'too long,' I don't have a whole lot of faith that those who are responding to me are actually getting the point.

I am NOT claiming that wind farms kill MORE birds than fossil fuels or tall buildings or electric lines or whatever. I am NOT advocating that wind farms be torn down and/or forbidden. I AM saying that they do pose a problem, and that problem needs addressing. Just because an individual wind farm might not kill as many buildings as the entirety of the electric grid of the USA doesn't mean it doesn't kill wildlife.

I would THINK that those who are 'green,' or mindful of the ecology would be concerned about anything that causes problems, but quite frankly, what I'm seeing here is a blatantly partisan stand, where (as one poster also outright stated) that sometimes one has to choose between two rapists.

I don't think we do have to choose. I think that, in going for renewable energy, we need to acknowledge problems as they crop up, and then endeavor to fix those problems.

In the post that the other critic admitted not reading (and that you evidently didn't read either) I mentioned some of the methods that wind farm owners are trying in order to lessen the impact of wind farms on bird populations. I get most of my information from the people who actually own the farms, and those who are affected by them, since, y'know, I'm RIGHT THERE. The Tehachapi farm is part of my view every single day. I am very aware of the things that are being tried to keep from, for instance, eliminating the California Condor.

Oh, yes, and I do get a lot of information from the Audubon Society, which, believe it or not, is NOT wholesale against wind farms.

But what I'm seeing here from you guys is what you are criticizing from the 'pro-coal people." That is, a complete denial that wind and solar energy causes any problems at all....just like the folks who support the energy you hate do. You guys are so politically in favor of 'renewable energy" in terms of wind farms that you refuse to see any problems or any need to address them. That is just as short sighted as those who want to keep mining and burning coal.

It's also as hypocritical as all get out, and a complete credibility destroyer, indicating as it does as one sided an approach to this as any far right wing oil advocate.

Yes fair points. It is a tragedy of our time that politically charged debates nowadays always get turned into tribal shouting matches between extreme positions, in which the most cynical motives are assumed.

Wind power, like all electricity generation, has its environmental side-effects. That does not stop it being a valuable part of the renewables mix, as we search for ways to reduce our CO2 output, which is by far the most serious environmental problem from energy use. Nuclear will definitely as need to be part of the mix as well. However nuclear has a bit of a history of playing games with its costs, especially the costs of disposing safely of spent fuel.

The challenge with renewables is their intermittent nature. Nuclear does not help much here, as it is a baseload power system, not one for turning on and off according to the supply from renewables. But it reduces the dependence on renewables and hence the overall degree of variability in supply.

Solar and wind need either batteries or a peak-shaving system for when they do not generate, such as gas turbines. (Again it is not always clear that the cost of providing the peak-shaving is built into costings of renewables.)

But it seems to me that at this point in history we have to push forward on all these fronts as we try to optimise how best to reduce dependence on coal and oil.

 

[gnostic]

Those aren't due to windmills though.
I blame our covering the planet with pavement, farms, cities & law offices.
We should attack that last one first.

My suggestion for the first, would be the Oval Office with Donald Trump still in it.

 

[Revoltingest]

My suggestion for the first, would be the Oval Office with Donald Trump still in it.

First we need more lawyers in it.

 

[wandering peacefully]

It is hard not to notice. What are we doing, that even
insects cant take it?

The fewer species, the more wildly unstable
ecosystems are going to be.

Deforestation and Roundup weed killer are probably the top two reasons. It is hard to say exactly what the cause is. I used to sit on my porch at night and the screens would be totally covered with every type of moth and other flying bugs. Now, absolutely nothing. Seeing a butterfly is a rare treat during the day. Less bugs must mean less dragonflies , frogs and birds. It sure is going to be interesting to see the natural ecosystems change. I imagine though that greater minds in the future will reproduce our lost species in labs and turn them lose. Who knows?

 

[Thief]

Just watched a TED related video by Michael Shellenberger, who talks about how windmills kill birds and the instability of solar power leads to a need for more natural gas power. He discusses the problem of disposing of toxic solar panels the relative expense of renewable infrastructure versus relying upon nuclear energy.

So what do you think about these things? Please take the time to watch the video if you can or skim it. Its about 17 minutes long. Are windmills and solar panel farms a mistake?

For reference here are some previous threads hosted here on RF where the topic of renewable energy has been discussed:
100% Renewable Energy Vision
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
Another Energy Thread
Compressing Air for Renewable Energy Storage

Here's the video:

we have been parallel ......I saw the item last weekend

I LIKED it

 

[Thief]

SO....!!!!!

it seems a particular type of radioactive element would be better than what we now use

how about thorium?

 

[Audie]

Deforestation and Roundup weed killer are probably the top two reasons. It is hard to say exactly what the cause is. I used to sit on my porch at night and the screens would be totally covered with every type of moth and other flying bugs. Now, absolutely nothing. Seeing a butterfly is a rare treat during the day. Less bugs must mean less dragonflies , frogs and birds. It sure is going to be interesting to see the natural ecosystems change. I imagine though that greater minds in the future will reproduce our lost species in labs and turn them lose. Who knows?

My stepdad said when he was a teenager about to
make a bad decision his comment to himself was
"whatever happens, it will be interesting"

 

[wandering peacefully]

My stepdad said when he was a teenager about to
make a bad decision his comment to himself was
"whatever happens, it will be interesting"

Yes, it's definitely not the way to think about the future but what else can those of us who actually notice these changes do about it? I tried calling my state entomology lab years ago. Never heard back from them.
I am hopeful about the school age kids now and them understanding climate change and being smart enough to come up with renewable energy sources which will actually work without all the bad side effects. Mainly because they will have to in order for their children to survive.

 

[charlie sc]

Yes, it's definitely not the way to think about the future but what else can those of us who actually notice these changes do about it? I tried calling my state entomology lab years ago. Never heard back from them.
I am hopeful about the school age kids now and them understanding climate change and being smart enough to come up with renewable energy sources which will actually work without all the bad side effects. Mainly because they will have to in order for their children to survive.

Indeed, but seriously, wind farms are the last thing to worry about concerning the health of the planet or birds.

 

[Thief]

economics people......economics

if Joe Blow cant afford it.......the bill won't get paid

the bill is too high.......no change of hands in currency
no market

 

[wandering peacefully]

Indeed, but seriously, wind farms are the last thing to worry about concerning the health of the planet or birds.

I think wind farms could work but their design and placement has to be thought out by scientists and not industry and politicians. That is a huge problem now and has been. There are people sitting at desks all over the country making ecological decisions who don't have a lick of science background.

 

[Thief]

economics people.....economics

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Just watched a TED related video by Michael Shellenberger, who talks about how windmills kill birds and the instability of solar power leads to a need for more natural gas power. He discusses the problem of disposing of toxic solar panels the relative expense of renewable infrastructure versus relying upon nuclear energy.

So what do you think about these things? Please take the time to watch the video if you can or skim it. Its about 17 minutes long. Are windmills and solar panel farms a mistake?

For reference here are some previous threads hosted here on RF where the topic of renewable energy has been discussed:
100% Renewable Energy Vision
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
Another Energy Thread
Compressing Air for Renewable Energy Storage

Here's the video:

If no one else has said, TEDx is not TED. It's a pretty fringe-y video, IMHO. His objections seem pretty ad hoc, frankly.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If no one else has said, TEDx is not TED. It's a pretty fringe-y video, IMHO. His objections seem pretty ad hoc, frankly.

Yeah I noticed it said it was merely affiliated or unaffiliated or some such. Also TED presenters contradict each other all the time, so its not like their presentations are official doctrines.

 

[charlie sc]

I think wind farms could work but their design and placement has to be thought out by scientists and not industry and politicians. That is a huge problem now and has been. There are people sitting at desks all over the country making ecological decisions who don't have a lick of science background.

True, and some suggestions here are to avoid building them in migration areas and maybe put some tags on them.

So now that politics are out of the way and science is informing us, what are we going to do about the mass amount of wild cats and domestic cats that are literally causing the extinction of birds?